Top Story
Vegetarians and the Challenge of Thanksgiving
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Nepal's Buddha boy returns to jungle to meditate
 
 
expand
PROJECT GREEN

All Eyes on Amtrak

Soaring gas prices and higher airfares are causing Americans to take a closer look at their rail system.

By Daniel Stone | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 12, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Jul 21, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: desh @ 09/09/2008 1:37:54 PM

    Comment: i ride often from phildelpha to washington area and i have found the trains are allways with in 15 minites of on time. The cars do get a little cold because of older cars have two settings 'on and off.' At less than $45 a ticket (one way) it doesn't get to expansive to go home for vacations from school.

    "Subsidy again. Amtrak receives a miniscule amount of the subsidy other modes receive, and so must keep its ticket prices high and even serve meals on the obscene plasticware. Members of congress are comitted to giving just enough to let Amtrak survive but not enough to make it work well."

    This is so true as plane companys were balled out after 9/11 because lake of public wanting to ride the fed subdized rates to get people back on. Why can't they do this to amtrak when people are finally realizing how easy the ride is and enviromentally friendly,

    PS. Why did we focess away from shiping all the crap we buy from rail to trucks? they conjest the roads and drive up the prices of everying beacuse of higher full amounts needed and over 300 drivers to do what a couple of people could do on a train.

  • Posted By: seses @ 07/22/2008 1:23:19 PM

    Comment: In an otherwise excellent article on Amtrak we see again a quotation from Joseph Vranich. I am at a loss as to why a fired Amtrak employee, who has made a career of trashing Amtrak and whose efforts are well-funded from sources with their own agenda, should be seen again and again as an expert. His own agenda is basically vengeance against Amtrak for firing him, and is in no way an expert on a company that let him go over 20 years ago.

  • Posted By: seses @ 07/21/2008 5:54:01 PM

    Comment: Those who believe Amtrak should be opened up to private companies forget why Amtrak exists: it was because the private companies gave up on rail service, unable to complete with heavily-subsidized airlines and highways. None of this has changed: no private company will want to undertake what private companies could not do previously. Several people have asked if Amtrak is so efficient why are its prices so high? Subsidy again. Amtrak receives a miniscule amount of the subsidy other modes receive, and so must keep its ticket prices high and even serve meals on the obscene plasticware. Members of congress are comitted to giving just enough to let Amtrak survive but not enough to make it work well.

  • Posted By: czuleget @ 07/17/2008 9:29:24 AM

    Comment: Ticket pricing, Check at least two weeks out and see if the prices are lower here in the west coast it will be less if you purchase at least one week out.
    We here on the west coast have a lsong way to go to match the rail network on the east coast.
    if you would like to keep up on rail fain info check out trainorders.com its a cool web site for good information on rail related news and blogs.
    State and interstate roads alike are subsidized so whats wrong with the rail network as well. To date the railroads maintain their own rails, which Amtrak is the fly in the oil for most railroads on long distant trains. Sure Amrtack pays for the access to the rails but it is a drop in the bucket. Congress really needs to listen to the public and get with the program if they want to remain in office.

  • Posted By: animalinski @ 07/16/2008 12:24:47 PM

    Comment: Yesterday I checked ticket prices from VA to FL on Amtrak and compared them to the airlines. Needless to say, I was totally shocked that the price of an Amtrak ticket (even with my AAA discount) was MORE than the price of a plane ticket; $325 vs $280 respectively.

    Given the claim by the Association of American Railroads as to the effeciency of diesel locomotives, HOW can Amtrak justify the fact that they cost most than the airlines? This cost comparison does not even take into consideration that it would take 16 hours on a train vs. 5 hours by plane to complete my travel in one direction. Had the Amtrak price been more realistic I happily would have purchased their ticket over the airlines. Amtrak does have one thing the airlines are severly lacking, customer service!! Nothing worse than paying lots of money for the opportunity to receive mediocre customer service. However, given that Amtrak is more expensive AND takes longer, makes it hard to justify a train trip!!

    If Amtrak really wants to increase ridership, especially during these times of $4 a gallon fuel, then they MUST REDUCE their prices!! By decreasing each individual ticket price, they will not make more one each one, however, they will make more in the long run (by virtue of increasing the number ticket purchases AS A RESULT of lowerindividual ticket prices!!!). Is it better to sell 100 tickets at $100 each for $10,000 or 150 tickets at $80 each for $12,000; the results are obvious, as long as you look at the BIG PICTURE.

    AmTrak PLEASE revisit your prices!!!!!!!!

    • Posted By: solibs @ 07/17/2008 7:22:09 PM

      Comment: Of course a flight from FL to VA is going to take less time. Planes travel at 500mph. Amtrak has also been pricing its tickets higher because of the demand. On the east coast the trains are often sold out. Since Amtrak doesn't have the capital to buy more trains and build more rails they can't add more service. When service is added you'll see prices come down on those sold-out routes.

      Where trains can compete with the airlines is on trips of 500 miles or less. The Acela from NYC to DC already has the airlines beat. The total trip is quicker and, as a result Amtrak is carrying more passengers between those two cities than all of the airlines combined. Improvements in infrastructure can yield similar results between other cities. Chicago to St. Louis or Philadelphia to Pittsburgh for instance. It's about 300 miles between either pair and takes 5-6 hours by car (depending on traffic) and takes about 6 hours by train. Pennsylvania is working on making the trip shorter and there's no reason it can't eventually be brought down to 4 hours. Now, compare that with flying between the two cities. Drive to the airport, check in, clear security, wait, hope your flight isn't delayed, touchdown, wait for your bags, drive into town. If you have a perfect flight you might save 30 minutes on your trip.

  • Posted By: animalinski @ 07/16/2008 12:23:45 PM

    Comment: Yesterday I checked ticket prices from VA to FL on Amtrak and compared them to the airlines. Needless to say, I was totally shocked that the price of an Amtrak ticket (even with my AAA discount) was MORE than the price of a plane ticket; $325 vs $280 respectively.

    Given the claim by the Association of American Railroads as to the effeciency of diesel locomotives, HOW can Amtrak justify the fact that they cost most than the airlines? This cost comparison does not even take into consideration that it would take 16 hours on a train vs. 5 hours by plane to complete my travel in one direction. Had the Amtrak price been more realistic I happily would have purchased their ticket over the airlines. Amtrak does have one thing the airlines are severly lacking, customer service!! Nothing worse than paying lots of money for the opportunity to receive mediocre customer service. However, given that Amtrak is more expensive AND takes longer, makes it hard to justify a train trip!!

    If Amtrak really wants to increase ridership, especially during these times of $4 a gallon fuel, then they MUST REDUCE their prices!! By decreasing each individual ticket price, they will not make more one each one, however, they will make more in the long run (by virtue of increasing the number ticket purchases AS A RESULT of lowerindividual ticket prices!!!). Is it better to sell 100 tickets at $100 each for $10,000 or 150 tickets at $80 each for $12,000; the results are obvious, as long as you look at the BIG PICTURE.

    AmTrak PLEASE revisit your prices!!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: avalanchecowpoke @ 07/16/2008 7:26:59 AM

    Comment: Isn't it true that none of our methods of transportation pays its own way? The reality is that we need all of our modes of transport now and especially for the furture---Aren't we WAY behind in developing infrastructure? Americans need to put the pressure on all levels of our government to get the job done!

  • Posted By: stake_spike @ 07/15/2008 5:28:16 PM

    Comment: Train travel is probably the worst way to travel. I took a train from San Antonio to Phoenix thinking it was going to be glamorous like the movies and it was the opposite. The train was 5 hours late just because it's a train so it's not reliable like say a plane (I ended spending 24-25 hours on the train), your packed into a cabin like sardines, it was just the worse thing I've ever experienced. Nothing like the movies.

    Maybe in Europe trains are a little more comfrotable because it's normal to take the EuroRail but here it's not.

    • Posted By: Montana999 @ 07/15/2008 5:32:47 PM

      Comment: Our Family have ridden Amtrak several times , specifically from Malta MT to Portland Oregon, and we always had a very positive and comfrotable experience, Maybe at most we were delayed 1 hour. I would trade up to Train Travel, from Airplane travel any day!

  • Posted By: adastra42 @ 07/15/2008 5:03:41 PM

    Comment: Funny thing: USDOT has proposals for high speed rail corridors that conveniently do not connect:

    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations.png&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations.png&h=862&w=1440&sz=109&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=QUmvGq3TB6lFKM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dus%2Bhigh%2Bspeed%2Brail%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

    It would be all too simple to extend these lines at critical points to create a ntaional high speed network: cleveland-pittsburgh, st. louis and louisville-nashville-atlanta, kansas city-tulsa, little rock-st louis, little rock-meridian, houston-san antonio, sacramento-portland, mobile-tallahassee-jacksonville, jacksonville-orlando.

    Getting across the rockies is tough, but it can be done as well: oklahoma city-amarillo-albuquerque-phoenix-las vegas-los angeles, with a spur from albuquerque to denver. Presto! high-speed national network. But somehow USDOT didn't do that. Perhaps they are under pressure to do this, by the same parties that press the 'inefficiency' of rail travel in general.

    Yes I am cynical (and a little but conspiratorial); I see too much propaganda against rail transit by those who turn a blind eye to road and air travel inequities. Amtrak is by no means perfect: any rail advocate will acknowledge that, but there is a big difference between imperfect and infeasible.

    • Posted By: Montana999 @ 07/15/2008 5:12:41 PM

      Comment: Interesting.... Nice how they omitted; Idhoa, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona,............................ Granted it would be tought to develop new lines thru the rockies, but we also have just as many needs North/South.

  • Posted By: guideboat @ 07/15/2008 4:59:39 PM

    Comment: It's about time! We are sending untold billions to our enemies for the oil we use, and NO CAR can haul a ton 432 miles on a gallon of fuel! If the rest of the world can do it, we can too! Veto-proof bills will shove Bush out of the way, and he will be gone next January! I will be calling for my ticket today!

  • Posted By: LaffsOutLOud @ 07/15/2008 4:28:46 PM

    Comment: I recently travelled by AMTRAK from San Francisco to Reno at 1/3 third the cost of flying and had a great trip. Everyone was attentive, responsive to my needs and it was relaxing. I've ridden rail all over the world and take rail every chance I get... even more now that the airlines treat the traveling public like sh*t. I hope that the US wakes up to the positive changes that AMTRAK has made and continues to support the growth and modernization of rail travel in the US.

  • Posted By: tst07 @ 07/15/2008 4:20:39 PM

    Comment: I will try to speak from my experiences of Amtrak both as a passenger and structural employee.

    Like the article says, Amtrak only owns a fraction of the rail that has been laid out throughout the country, mostly in the northeast between Boston and Washington DC. This has been the only profitable part of Amtrak's business over it's lifetime. Amtrak has spent $10's of billions on improvements. For example, Amtrak has replaced nearly 6,000 bridges, the rails, and thousands of signals along this route to improve their service. This has allowed Amtrak to introduce a high speed rail service to cut down on trip time. It is so popular that it helped Amtrak turn a profit for the first time in it's history 2 years ago.

    Unfortunately, the private freight companies that own the rest of the rail lines in the United States have not updated their systems since the civil war (really!). Most of the bridges, especially in the southeast are still one way, which means if an Amtrak train and a freight train meet at nearly the same time at a bridge, the Amtrak train must yield. It can take a 3 mile long freight train doing nearly 20 minutes to clear the bridge. In the summer, the freight lines impose a speed limit because the heat from the summer sun can bend the track potentially derailing a speeding train. This has a profound effect on the arrival time of the long distance services.

    I will agree that Amtrak's management is pathetic since most of the board members are tied to members of Congress. However, most people who oppose Amtrak do not understand how vital Amtrak is to the northeast. Amtrak wants to expand service to places like Chicago to Detroit, Chicago to St. Louis, Dallas to San Antonio to Houston, and LA to San Diego, but tons of red tape still plague the railroad; most of it due to the private rail companies and Congress.The government spends 10 times as much money subsidizing the airlines than it does the railroads. I believe a regional rail service will not work .Imagine getting on the train and having to change trains every 200 miles because you have reached to limit of one company's service with layovers at each stop.

    Remember when the airlines were paralyzed by 9/11. How many people used Amtrak to get home. Amtrak MUST be an alternative.

    • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 6:48:57 PM

      Comment: Amtrak has never turned a profit in its 37 years of existance. The Northeast Corridor does make enough money to cover its operating expenses, but it does not cover its captial expenses. And the NE Corridor has the highest capital expenses of any division of Amtrak. Of the $1.2 Billion given to Amtrak last year, the best estimates by experts indicate that about $300 Million went into keeping the long distance trains running.

      The remainder went to debt service (incurred from years of underfunding by the Fed) and into the NEC. And despite the billions put into the corridor over the years, frankly the upper speed limit really hasn't changed all that much between DC and NY. It went from 125 MPH to 135 MPH. Between NY and Boston however, they did make major improvements.

      And the board members are appointed by the President of the United States, with Congress' approval. So they tend to be tied more closely with the President, not Congress.

  • Posted By: mr mike @ 07/15/2008 4:19:29 PM

    Comment: Great article what are americans and transit going to do now and for the future. Amtrak information will be added on this site in the summer of 2008
    http://www.transitguru.com/

    • Posted By: Montana999 @ 07/15/2008 4:43:14 PM

      Comment: Nice Site, Notice Montana does not provide Bus service from rual areas to the airports or other major cities, they shut down the bus lines (north/south lines) also about 2 years ago. The only bus service is LIMITED major city LOCAL bus service, airline service stopped a few months ago to all rual cities from major Montana cities. There is 1 greyhound bus line that runs along I-90, that's it. and 1 amtrak line that runs along the canadian boarder, that's it. Which none of these infrastructures meets the needs for the majority of Montana residences. It really is pathetic.........

  • Posted By: steinwayboogie @ 07/15/2008 4:11:25 PM

    Comment: I'm sixty years old and the first train I ever road was the Bullet train from Tokyo to Kyoto in 1981. What a shame. I travel several weeks a month now and would gladly give up on the headache of air travel for a nice modern train ride. Wake up American and smell the clean air!

    • Posted By: Montana999 @ 07/15/2008 4:21:05 PM

      Comment: I too travel 3 weeks a month, and currently have to commute 3 hours to the Billings MT airport from my home. I would much rather travel via Train and give up the Airplanes completely!

  • Posted By: bill in tn @ 07/15/2008 4:07:50 PM

    Comment: Some years ago Congressman Zack Wamp of TN proposed a direct rail link between Chattanooga and Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport. It never got off the drawing board. Maybe Zack needs to reconsider it. As a longtime railfan and vollunteer railroader, I hope so. Every day the Weather Channel posts Airport Delays. Amtrak just keeps on rollin' along.

  • Posted By: amyjw @ 07/15/2008 4:05:26 PM

    Comment: I have to agree with Vranich that says the government should not subsidize the trains but open it up to private companies. Here is my horror story with Amtrak. In June of this year, I needed to get to Chicago from Arkansas. My husband and I absolutely hate the drive between the two. So, I started looking at airline prices...not an option. I then checked into Amtrak. Decent prices...about what would have been spent on gas anyway, but without having to do the driving. And, I was shocked to see that it would only take about two hours longer than we usually take in the car anyway. It usually takes us about 12 hours to make the drive (we stop everywhere!) and it took the train almost 14.
    So, Amtrak is was. We were both excited about our first train ride. Right from the start, we had a 3 hour delay even getting on the train because it was stuck behind a stalled freight train somewhere in Texas. I was mad. Then I realized that there were people on that train. They're having to wait those 3 hours to get moving again. We went to Wal-mart. Poor folks. My first instinct was to just start the car and head on to Chicago. Needless to say, that's not what happened. After additional delays of around 6 HOURS, that put us in Chicago 9 HOURS LATE!!!!! The only way to get off the train while it was stopped was to be thrown off and have a report filed. I was seriously contemplating this move. The train ran out of everything except bad attitudes from the staff. Instead of boarding for the return trip home, we rented a car and drove ourselves back to Arkansas. Know what the difference was in a one-way fare refund from Amtrak and the rental car & gas to get home? Ten bucks.
    So, for me, is Amtrak a consideration on which way to travel? NOPE. If, in say, twenty years, when a private company may take it over and have their own tracks to travel on, I may change my tune a bit. 'Til then, I will never...even if it means never leaving my state...step foot on another Amtrak train as long as I live.

    • Posted By: oldestdaughter @ 08/01/2008 6:33:02 PM

      Comment: My folks recently took Amtrak from Omaha to Sacramento. They were an hour late leaving Omaha, sat another hour in Lincoln, barely moved thru Utah and arrived in Sacramento 6 hours late. Their car was so cold, people passing thru it thought it was a refrigerator car. My dad ended up hospitalized with pneumonia in Sacramento. Needless to say, they never plan on riding the train again. hohorror

    • Posted By: bill in tn @ 07/15/2008 4:22:08 PM

      Comment: Your experience is of course unfortunate, but it illustrates a major problem Amtrak has had all along: They don't have any control over things like stalled freight trains. On the other hand when things go right, the trip is half the fun of a vacation. I hope you will give it at leasst one more shot. You might also report the discourteous staff to Amtrak. Unlike the airlines, they do care about passengers and the way they are treated! God Bless you!

      Bill

      • Posted By: amyjw @ 07/15/2008 4:56:33 PM

        Comment: Bill- You're right about the control that they do not have over things like the stalled freight trains. Even without the stalled one in Texas, we found out the return train was 4 hours late. Like I said, we weren't on that one and we were thanking our lucky stars. Speaking of the staff, at one point, it felt like an ice box in our car (it was a very small section, about 15 people) and we all asked the guy to have it turned down if possible. A different guy came down with a key, opened the box and turned it down and says "Now you can all sweat"!!!! I was in shock! Anyhoo, I did point out the staff to the person that told me the procedure for a refund, but she wasn't sympathetic. She just said that she'll make a note, and that's the last I heard of anything. But, you're right on another point, too. The airlines don't care about passengers. It's all a big mess and I don't know where the answer lies. I do think everyone would benefit from more tracks that are owned by Amtrak. But, how much land would they have to take away from citizens for that? Would they be going through my pasture? Those are things that must be considered as well.

  • Posted By: Schwartzie @ 07/15/2008 4:02:06 PM

    Comment: It would be important to have high speed trains cross country for major routes such as; Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles - We needed this back in the 70's and the government never offered monies for trains but did for the airlines. Our train system deserves to be upgraded to the quality such as Europe and Asian countries - It is riduculous for us to just depend on airlines.

  • Posted By: Montana999 @ 07/15/2008 3:55:23 PM

    Comment: Montana NEEDS the AMTRAK State Southern line re-opened and operational, that connects to cities such as; Chicago, Denver, and Spokane. Funny thing they shut down this line about 2 - 3 years ago, which hit all off the major cities within Montana (Billings, Livingston (Entrance to Yellowstone Park), Bozeman, Missoula....). But they kept the Northern line (Runs close to the Canadian Boarder) open that basically provides service for tourists and a few rural communities. Oh and did I mention that our only local airlines "Big Sky" shut down a few months ago? Montana has no real infrastructure to meet the real needs of our residences and rural communities. Did you know there was another major train line that traveled within the middle of the State of Montana and provided much needed service for the MANY rural communities within Montana (Made logical sense, half way within the state, easier for most to commute to the train stations). It was the blood line for these rural towns, but Billings MT determined (not the rural townships) it was now the central hub for the train industry at the time. Today the majority means of transportation is trucks and cars within the state of Montana, not much else, and it really hurts the pocket book!! Check out the Amtrak Route Atlas, kinda funny how it bypasses the middle of Montana, which I would think would be a good central point for people to commute too? But I guess since we are not on the East Coast or the West Coast, we just are not good enough for Amtrak, or any other logical infrastructure that meets the needs of Montana residence (Other than Bozeman???)..

  • Posted By: Montana999 @ 07/15/2008 3:55:01 PM

    Comment: Montana NEEDS it's Southern line returned from AMTRAK. Funny thing they shut down the line about 2 - 3 years ago, which hit all off the major cities within Montana (Billings, Livingston, Bozeman, Missoulla....). But they kept the Northern line open that basically provides service for tourists and and a few rual communites. Oh and did I mention that our only local airlines "Big Sky" shut down a few months ago? Montana has no real infrastructure to meet the reall needs of our residence. Did you know there was another major train line that traveled within the middle of Montana and provided much needed service for the MANY rual communites within Montana. It was the blood line for these towns, but Billings determined (not the ruarl townships) it was the central hub for the train industry at the time. Today the majority means of transportation is trucks and cars within the state of Montana, not much else, and it really hurts the pocket book!!

  • Posted By: obvious_thinker @ 07/15/2008 3:44:06 PM

    Comment: Maybe the best way around this is to hybridize the ideas. #1 take Amtrak public. #2 Airlines get all sorts of special cash, Removing Amtrak from direct funding saves us all money, but we can still give it "spending money" periodically until its on its feet. #3 allow, no, strongly recommend that the freight rail companies create their own smaller inter-city passenger services. Seattle-Portland, OK City-KS City, LA-Las Vegas, Cleveland-Toledo-Detriot, etc. Let Amtrak continue to do the long hauls & touristy trips. #4 Fed funding to get all main lines up to high-speed standards so that all transportation companies can benefit. That means 3 track mains made with concrete ties most likely, with better junctions in main cities allowing faster transfers between private rail lines (i.e. BN-SF to UP-SP) so that Amtrak can get moving more smoothly.

  • Posted By: magnets @ 07/15/2008 3:43:45 PM

    Comment: Congress is always in the business of covering up real costs. Since the Interstate Highway system is essentially fully built, the major cost is, or should be, maintenance and incremental improvements designed to provide a smooth flow of traffic even at rush hour. Users of the Interstate Highway

    system include just about anyone that buys gas.

    So, the gas tax is the ideal place to fund the Interstate Highway system.

    The only problem is that the tax collected today is too small to cover the

    complete cost. So the tax should be raised to provide full funding.

    Now, if the tax is raised to cover full funding of the Interstate Highway

    system then two things happen. First, gas is even more expensive and other

    forms of transportation look less expensive. Second, we can more clearly

    look at history and say, it took X-years to fully build out the Interstate

    Highway system.

    The next step is to determine how passenger-rail fits in the overall

    transportation system. Perhaps we could use a state orientation similar to

    how a subway operates in a major city? Perhaps we need to look at the real

    travel times for aircraft and put track down joining smaller cities and small

    towns where rail is faster? Perhaps we need to put a big X across the

    country and join Jacksonville, FL to Seattle, WA and Bangor, ME to San

    Diego, CA. with Grand Central station being somewhere in Kansas. Towns

    have grownup because the Interstate passed by. I'm sure new towns would

    do the same around the X-corridor in the middle of nowhere (if we still have

    nowheres).

    But, whatever is decided, the fact is that each form of transportation needs

    to eventually pay for itself. Just because AMTRAK has failed to do so for

    close to 40 years does not mean it is all Amtraks fault. Just because the

    Interstate Highway system is publically owned does not mean that is

    inherently bad and that it should be sold into private hands. Similarly, I

    doubt that Amtrak in private hands would do any better than it does today.

    Personally I prefer driving from Georgia to Minnesota. But, I prefer taking the

    train from several cities in Georgia to several cities in North Carolina. And, if

    I have to fly, airplane travel is best for coast-to-coast travel. I have no

    idea where it is best to take a scheduled bus, but,

  • Posted By: magnets @ 07/15/2008 3:43:08 PM

    Comment: Congress is always in the business of covering up real costs. Since the

    Interstate Highway system is essentially fully built, the major cost is, or

    should be, maintenance and incremental improvements designed to provide a

    smooth flow of traffic even at rush hour. Users of the Interstate Highway

    system include just about anyone that buys gas.

    So, the gas tax is the ideal place to fund the Interstate Highway system.

    The only problem is that the tax collected today is too small to cover the

    complete cost. So the tax should be raised to provide full funding.

    Now, if the tax is raised to cover full funding of the Interstate Highway

    system then two things happen. First, gas is even more expensive and other

    forms of transportation look less expensive. Second, we can more clearly

    look at history and say, it took X-years to fully build out the Interstate

    Highway system.

    The next step is to determine how passenger-rail fits in the overall

    transportation system. Perhaps we could use a state orientation similar to

    how a subway operates in a major city? Perhaps we need to look at the real

    travel times for aircraft and put track down joining smaller cities and small

    towns where rail is faster? Perhaps we need to put a big X across the

    country and join Jacksonville, FL to Seattle, WA and Bangor, ME to San

    Diego, CA. with Grand Central station being somewhere in Kansas. Towns

    have grownup because the Interstate passed by. I'm sure new towns would

    do the same around the X-corridor in the middle of nowhere (if we still have

    nowheres).

    But, whatever is decided, the fact is that each form of transportation needs

    to eventually pay for itself. Just because AMTRAK has failed to do so for

    close to 40 years does not mean it is all Amtraks fault. Just because the

    Interstate Highway system is publically owned does not mean that is

    inherently bad and that it should be sold into private hands. Similarly, I

    doubt that Amtrak in private hands would do any better than it does today.

    Personally I prefer driving from Georgia to Minnesota. But, I prefer taking the

    train from several cities in Georgia to several cities in North Carolina. And, if

    I have to fly, airplane travel is best for coast-to-coast travel. I have no

    idea where it is best to take a scheduled bus, but,

  • Posted By: pgmicha@sbcglobal.net @ 07/15/2008 3:42:35 PM

    Comment: It's going to take a state-federal effort to improve amtrak. For example in Missouri, it suffers from delays due to only 1 track in both directions for parts of the route. As a result the amtrak is always the one that has to wait out the freight trains on sidings. Missouri is going to invest $5 Million to improve tracks so that Amtrak trains will run on time. Illinois has spent $100 Million on track improvements and it shows in the ridership levels.

  • Posted By: Montana999 @ 07/15/2008 3:41:19 PM

    Comment: Montana NEEDS it's Southern line returned from AMTRAK. Funny thing they shut down the line about 2 - 3 years ago, which hit all off the major cities within Montana (Billings, Livingston, Bozeman, Missoulla....). But they kept the Northern line open that basically provides service for tourists and and a few rual communites. Oh and did I mention that our only local airlines "Big Sky" shut down a few months ago? Montana has no real infrastructure to meet the reall needs of our residence. Did you know there was another major train line that traveled within the middle of Montana and provided much needed service for the MANY rual communites within Montana. It was the blood line for these towns, but Billings determined (not the ruarl townships) it was the central hub for the train industry at the time. Today the majority means of transportation is trucks and cars within the state of Montana, not much else, and it really hurts the pocket book!!

  • Posted By: Stihl075 @ 07/15/2008 3:37:23 PM

    Comment: We are a nation of subsidies and that's sad.....

  • Posted By: latrishmo @ 07/15/2008 3:35:55 PM

    Comment: For such a advanced country,America is way way behind Europe as far as fast ,affordable and enviromentalyy friendly transportation...A disgrace ...For all our weatlh and tecnology,we are still in the dark ages when it comes to moving the masses around....There is no rail transportation to any of our beautifull National Parks,shamefull !!! It has taken the huge rise in gas prices to get our attention,Perhaps that is why Europe has invested in a awsome rail system years ago...They have been paying huge prices for oil for several years

    • Posted By: usbear2008 @ 07/16/2008 1:05:42 AM

      Comment: You guys really need to get off the Europeans pay more for oil than Americans do thing. They don't. Oil is a global commodity for which everyone (within a few percentage points) pays the same. What the Europeans do pay much much more for are taxes on their fuel and that results in much higher prices at the pump. However, according to the Economist magazine, the cost for the gasoline (the liquid itself) is about the same as in the US.

    • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 3:59:02 PM

      Comment: That's the problem in a nutshell, lack of investment. The tiny country of Estonia, smaller than Rhode Island, was investing more money in their national rail system 10 years ago than the mighty US was.

      Sad.

  • Posted By: Fishin' Man @ 07/15/2008 3:12:00 PM

    Comment: Jeff. Uhhhhh............are you forgetting the massive subsidies to our airline industry (FAA, ATF, infrastructure, etc.). Subsidies to the trucking industry include the Interstate Highway System. Having just returned from Europe, their integrated rail system can't be beat for service quality, punctuality, cost. Europe has a long term capital plan to maintain the basic rail bed system in tip top shape.

    • Posted By: mbg51 @ 07/15/2008 3:22:11 PM

      Comment: Then why not have the government build and maintain the actual rail bed system and let Amtrak and other companies compete for service. The way it works right now (a monopoly where one company gets public funding) will never result in an integrated rail system similar to Europe. As I said before - the only real way to significantly improve the system is good, healthy capitalistic competition.

  • Posted By: stocky47 @ 07/15/2008 3:09:47 PM

    Comment: jstartmi@bellsouth.net
    Riding the trains is a good thing but,the way amtrak trains are schedule they will never get the business that it should get. For example if want to go to atlanta from Ft. lauderdale, FL - Ihave to go all the way to Washing D.C. changed trains and then go back to Atlanta, Ga - GO FIGURE !!!

  • Posted By: Fishin' Man @ 07/15/2008 3:09:32 PM

    Comment: Jeff, Uhhh.....are you forgetting the massive subsidies paid to the airline industry for infrastructure and oversight (FAA, ATF, etc.). Subsidies for truckers include the Interstate Highway system. Having just returned from Europe, their integrated rail system cannot be beat for speed, punctuality, service, cost.

  • Posted By: JeffTheGreat @ 07/15/2008 2:58:32 PM

    Comment: I've been thinking a lot about Amtrak myself. Unfortunatly, they just don't run the way they should. Check ou my recent blog post with 4 examples of how they can fix the system.

    http://jeffthegreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/jeff-great-calls-alllll-aaaboard.html

  • Posted By: sarahluvsmom @ 07/15/2008 2:53:06 PM

    Comment: I literally was checking out Amtrak options last night going from San Jose, CA (inconvenient) to Burbank Airport (also inconvenient). Oh joy, for $88 round trip, I spend 6 hours and 20 minutes on a bus to Santa Barbara then 2 hours and 25 minutes on a train (the same on the trip back). Needless to say, I'm opting for spending $100 more to fly round trip for an hour each way out of a more convenient airport. I loved my trip on West Coast Starlight years ago to Portland (however, I went first class), but on this business trip, I'll opt for the airlines!

  • Posted By: mellowoutmon @ 07/15/2008 2:34:52 PM

    Comment: I don't see why people insist that Amtrak "pay its own way." The highways don't; they rely on tax dollars.

    • Posted By: JeffTheGreat @ 07/15/2008 2:59:52 PM

      Comment: you are comparring 2 different things. Airlines are asked to pay their own way. Trucking companies pay their own way. Why shouldn't Amtrak pay its own way?

      • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 4:03:17 PM

        Comment: The Airlines don't pay their own way. Last year direct Federal subsidies to the Air Traffic Control system were over $1 Billion. Then there were monies funneled into other things that directly benefit the airlines.

        And Trucks don't pay the full value of the damage that they cause to our interstate higways and other roads. If they did, they'd be out of business and the Fed wouldn't have pumped in $50 Billion in direct subsidies into the roads.

      • Posted By: mbg51 @ 07/15/2008 3:14:34 PM

        Comment: The point is that having Amtrak pay its own way and allowing for real competition will actually speed the improvement of the system. Having one commuter rail company subsidized by the government does not encourage advancement in the rail system.
        It is not that people don't think rail is a worthwhile endeavor worthy of funding, but the fact that public funding actually discourages advancements and improvements. Why race to improve when you have a monopoly plus public funds coming in. Why not just relax and sit back keeping costs down to a minimum so that they do not exceed the amount of public funding you receive. The only real way to significantly improve the system is good, healthy capitalistic competition.

  • Posted By: Dynaglide @ 07/15/2008 1:47:39 PM

    Comment: Passenger service when operated by individual rail systems was quite a thing to behold, and enjoy, prior to its demise that was gradually, yet inexorably effected through government subsidization of competition - airplanes and highways. Aside from a few populous corridors, Amtrak has never been viable inasmuch as its frequency of service has been poor, its level of service mediocre and its competition daunting. Freight railroads, that had for years operated passenger trains long after they had become unprofitable by virtue of regulation, have since pared their physical plant to accommodate freight traffic that has burgeoned and will most likely continue to do so - as freight business will move to rail for the same reason passengers might with a viable option. For most of the country, Amtrak will not be able to afford a reliable alternative without huge investment in additional tracks and train frequency. The Iraq adventure has siphoned off funds that would have been more usefully devoted to a significant improvement in energy dependence in this respect. Best to purchase a motorcycle for the time being.

  • Posted By: Dynaglide @ 07/15/2008 1:46:51 PM

    Comment: Passenger service when operated by individual rail systems was quite a thing to behold, and enjoy, prior to its demise that was gradually, yet inexorably effected through government subsidization of competition - airplanes and highways. Aside from a few populous corridors, Amtrak has never been viable inasmuch as its frequency of service has been poor, its level of service mediocre and its competition daunting. Freight railroads, that had for years operated passenger trains long after they had become unprofitable by virtue of regulation, have since pared their physical plant to accommodate freight traffic that has burgeoned and will most likely continue to do so - as freight business will move to rail for the same reason passengers might with a viable option. For most of the country, Amtrak will not be able to afford a reliable alternative without huge investment in additional tracks and train frequency. The Iraq adventure has siphoned off funds that would have been more usefully devoted to a significant improvement in energy independence in this respect.

  • Posted By: judypdx @ 07/15/2008 1:33:29 PM

    Comment: The real issue about whether Amtrak will be able to seize the moment and became a competitive alternative is not track ownership nor track conditions - it's employee morale and training. It is currently very poor. I recently achieved a long-term dream of taking the Empire Builder - the train from Seattle to Chicago. It was miserable - the staff on the trains, almost without exception, were indifferent and resentful. It became a nightmare. nightmare

  • Posted By: ndrock @ 07/15/2008 1:18:17 PM

    Comment: Depending on what part of the country you are in, makes all the difference. If you want to compare arrival times, then be fair, when was the last time a plane was on time? A car maybe, but again, depends on what part of the country you are in. No one can take and compare the whole system across the nation, and come up with a negative all across the board. I have not had the opportunity to ride the train recently, but when I have it has always been a pleasant experience. Yes we need to update, but when it was privately owned it failed miserably. It has been run by a government that did not intend for it succeed. It was just hoping since the 1920's it would die its own slow death and go the way of the horse, and no one would notice. BUT NOW the oil fascicle, so it has to be looked at again, and more what our legislators consider "peanut money" poured into it. Those poor people in Washington got caught with their pants down again. Know one has asked, how much did the CEO's of the trains make this past couple of years?

  • Posted By: saaphiel @ 07/15/2008 1:13:11 PM

    Comment: Privatizing Amtrak is the absolute WORST thing you can do.

    They privatized the rail systems out here in England and it's now costing me £38 ($72 USD) for a round trip from 40 miles outside London to central London.

    I worked out that it's much cheaper for me to drive into London and park there than it is to take the train in. (and the government wonder why people are refusing to get out of their cars and take the train in instead!!)

    If it's privatized, it's all about profits... watch those fees go through the roof!

  • Posted By: postalguy05 @ 07/15/2008 1:08:10 PM

    Comment: as an american living in europe (Germany) i tend to shy away from conversations with my european friends where the conversation is about the american rail system. while it had its greatness in the 1800s it has turned to IMO an ambarrassment. AMTRAK could really use some hrad lessons from the europeans where rail systems are concerned. you can get almost anywhere in continental europe via rail in the US they still havent even repaired the rails for the FLA - CA run AFTER HOW MANY YEARS???

  • Posted By: Starfarer @ 07/15/2008 1:02:47 PM

    Comment: Highways ought to be fully funded by tolls and gas taxes, but in fact most of their funding comes from income taxes.

  • Posted By: postalguy05 @ 07/15/2008 1:01:15 PM

    Comment: as a us citizen living in europe for the last 15 years i say its about time. they have had the mass transit system down pat for years. the us could learn from the europeans !!!

  • Posted By: Starfarer @ 07/15/2008 1:00:34 PM

    Comment: I would be in favor of cutting Federal subsidies to rail travel if Federal subsidies to the highways and airlines are cut to the same level. Personally, I think the government has enough on its hands fighting terrorism, but if the government is going to fund transportation, it should focus the money on where it can go the farthest, and on that, railroads win without a fight.

  • Posted By: BRADBENSON2007@comcast.net @ 07/15/2008 12:54:48 PM

    Comment: I would love to have a viable rail transport system. It won't happen with Amtrak in place. Amtrak executives have fine tuned the art of sucking the public teet. No private alternatives will emerge as long as Amtrak exists. At the very least, every executive position at Amtrak should be sent packing and the government should offer Amtrak for contract to bidders. If you recall the complaints about Haliburton's contracting in Iraq. IMO Amtrak makes Haliburton look great. Haliburton's overcharges were less than most government contracts AND they delivered something for the money. Amtrak bleeds and bleeds and fails to deliver.

    • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 1:30:41 PM

      Comment: Do you realize that Amtrak is 100% owned by the Federal Government with 100% of the voting stock held by the DOT in trust for Congress and the citizens of the US?

      It is the US Governement that has hired every executive at Amtrak. What makes you think that they are going to find better people if they fire the current ones?

      As for private alternatives, there are none. Amtrak exists because private enterprise found out 40 years ago that running passenger service isn't profitable. No one wants to run passenger service, unless they too can suck at the public teet as you put it.

  • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 07/15/2008 12:36:38 PM

    Comment: Train trumps bus! Plane trumps train,mmm for now,not bad, but closest train to 2 power plants and a refinery is zero, all done by truck.Driving is still better, if you give a ride! Advertise a ride to --- interview respondents and git! Splits the gas costs!!! To answer there question. I prefere a train, to a car, or bus, and today even planes, slow,but will get you were you need to. One drawback new tracks, none anywhere i'm aware of, so that's a big drawback in the East US. Where storms and floods have compramised tracks. At least you can walk around sit in far more comfort than a plane, save first class.Eat, relax,much more people friendly, for those who are not in a hurry!

  • Posted By: whtdovepeace @ 07/15/2008 12:31:13 PM

    Comment: I just took Amtrak from Oregon to Disneyland and LOVED the trip, however, I was appaulled to find out that just recently Amtrak laid off the dishwasher and invested in ONE TIME USE ONLY DISHES........Hard plastic dishes that are not recycled, not washed, just thrown in the garbage after each use......We had a party of 5 and after we learned of this outrage decided to keep our dishes after each meal--- by the time we got home we had two huge dishwashers loads of Amtrak dishes that we will add to our camping gear and get many years of use out of. As recently as last year Amtrak had dishwashers on board...........now they don't even coordinate with the cities they stop in to have there stuff RECYCLED. I got about 14 different excuses by management about why they were simply throwing everything in the garbage. I'd rather see them pay an employee to wash the dishes but if they must use disposables, I bet a few phone calls to the places they dump there garbage at could get them a few recycling bins. I will travel Amtrak again but I will also continue to complain about this ridiculous policy.

    • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 1:05:38 PM

      Comment: Whtdov,

      You can thank Congress in part for the plastic plates. It was Congress that two years or so ago ordered Amtrak to cut the losses in food service. Amtrak could only come up with this foolish plan to attempt to comply with that Congressional mandate.

      • Posted By: whtdovepeace @ 07/15/2008 1:31:25 PM

        Comment: Thanks for the info...I'll write a letter to my reps........ but congressional mandate or not, I'm pretty sure just about every city they drop off trash at has a recyling program they could access.... AMTRAK needs to take responsibility and make an effort on behalf of their company to do better with what they have to work with. Everything we used could be recycled or even donated to various organizations for reuse.

  • Posted By: Molliemole @ 07/15/2008 12:30:37 PM

    Comment: In articles which discuss the costs of running Amtrak, I never see any mention of what the federal government pays out annually to operate the FAA, or how much it costs to maintain airports all around the country. Shouldn't these figure into any comparison with operating Amtrak?
    I've been using Amtrak to travel for the past eight or ten years, and I couldn't be happier with it. Sure, Amtrak needs more trains so the schedules could be more convenient, but that's the fault of Congress. They've been strangling Amtrak for years. People who criticize Amtrak should realize that they're operating on a shoestring budget. I think they do a good job with what they have to work with. And I look forward to the coming improvements with great anticipation.

  • Posted By: weekiefreaky @ 07/15/2008 12:28:33 PM

    Comment: Yes, the East does get much more attention from Amtrak. The new Viewliner sleeping cars are available only in Amtrak's Eastern routes. Umm, how about the rest of us, like the Midwest?
    And I have to say that the 3 trips I have taken long distance on Amtrak were good but could have been great if they only tried harder. Clean windows, friendlier diner service and following through on promised amenities (newspapers & ice) could go a long way to making that almost $400 sleeping compartment (claustrophobic) worth it!

  • Posted By: sdlow @ 07/15/2008 12:14:46 PM

    Comment: Even with gas at $4/ gallon and flying increasingly expensive, they are both faster, cheaper, and more reliable than Amtrak. I took a trip last year from Raleigh to New York. It took almost 8 hours just get out of North Carolina!!!!!! The attendant said that their motto should be "Always Late.." It is inexcuable that so much can be invested in the rail lines between Washington and New York while you completely ignore the Southeast. A reliable line from New York to Miami could bring in millions in revenue. The key word in that statement is RELIABLE. If the measures currently going through Congress get passed, it will be $15 billion wasted, and no one will ever see any tangible results. I think our government has wasted enough of our money.

    • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 1:14:24 PM

      Comment: Amtrak doesn't own the tracks in North Carolina and therefore can't invest in them. CSX and Norfolk Southern own the tracks in NC. It's hard to stay on time when you don't control the traffic lights. If you want on time, then write your Congressmen and tell them to get the justice department to force NS and CSX to live up to their contracts with Amtrak.

      Besides, have you never been on a late plane? And at least you had food, water, and could get up and walk around, unlike say the people on Jet Blue who spent like 5 hours sitting on the tramac at JFK last year. By the way, the government helped to fund that too!

  • Posted By: Billions @ 07/15/2008 12:09:28 PM

    Comment: Trains would be more competitive if the costs of the using public roadways were tightly linked to usage, in the style of a capitalistic economy. The current system is a Soviet-style queue system, in which we drive under the allusion that the roadways are free, so they are congested and inefficiently used. Because of the poor linkage between cost and usage, individuals can price out out driving autos versus versus trains, and find that autos still cheaper even as the price of gasoline spirals upwards. Autos are actually are less competitive than they appear. Consumers are confused because the true costs of driving have been neatly hidden in only loosely associated taxes and fees to such an extent that know one really knows where their tax monies are going. The electorate could make wiser decisions if they were better able to perceive the actual costs of various options.

    • Posted By: BRADBENSON2007@comcast.net @ 07/15/2008 1:00:39 PM

      Comment: Actually, highway costs are perfectly linked to usage. Gas tax builds highways, drivers pay gas tax. Unfortunately, gas tax is also used to pay subsidies for train riders. If the cost of an Amtrak ticket truly represented the cost to the system (with out the subsidies from government), no one would buy an Amtrak ticket ever because it wouldn't be even slightly competitive.

      • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 1:53:14 PM

        Comment: Brad,

        Sorry, but no. Last year just at the Federal level $50 Billion dollars from the general revenue (ie. Income tax) went into the highway fund. That supplemented the nearly $70 Billion or so from the gas tax revenues that made up the monies spent on ground transportation. And that's just at the Federal level. Each city and State also helps to fund the local roads out of general tax revenues. Not one dime of gas tax money went into Amtrak or the Railroads.

        On the other hand, both Amtrak and the freight RR's all pay a federal tax on the diesel fuel that they buy for their engines which does go directly into the highway fund.

  • Posted By: merelyashadow @ 07/15/2008 11:51:14 AM

    Comment: Amtrack in Southern California just isn't feasible. The trains don't run often enough, or go to enough locations to make it a viable alternative. I can still drive 70 miles easier, faster and for just a little more money. When you factor in that you have to "cab" to somewhere else at the end (or the beginning) of your journey, that is money out of your transportation pocket also. There needs to be many more systems in place before people can "commute" by train here and make it work. I leave San Diego at 6:45 and can't get to Santa Ana until nearly 8:00, and then to manage to get to the office 5 miles away, takes another half hour and that shoots the morning. Sadly, the trains here only run on the coast, and not everyone is lucky enough to live on the coast. We need much more infrastructure to handle the working class individual that wants to commute to work. No serious effort seems to be forthcoming.

    • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 07/15/2008 12:46:27 PM

      Comment: like it or not travel a little on local transit. In S Calif you guys got one of the best systems [bus lines, local transit] in the states, been there done that. So i can understand your answer. I still love the SD to LA trip just to go back and forth at sunset. Beats driving. I know a friend of mine who lives in Leucadia and works in LA, makes decent money so he keeps one car for home use, and the other parks at train terminal in LA, to come home. Killing the need for cab or bus, his nerves are now much calmer then when he drove from 5am to 11:30am just to get to work. Now he just fends off the rush part of traffic to kickin back on the train. I do see both your points very clearly.

  • Posted By: sanityprevail @ 07/15/2008 11:50:35 AM

    Comment: The interstate highway system very well COULD make a profit someday, or at the very least be completely self-sustaining (that is, without gov't funds). The concept is simple, and slowly where things are heading: make all highways toll roads

    A number of major cities had highway loops around their outside region planned when the funding for these kinds of projects started to evaporate. Both Denver and Dallas went on to complete such projects by making the then product a TOLL road. They may not be popular, but we've been getting a "free ride" for decades with the interstate system, and it can't be sustained indefinitely. Put tolls on all the roads, add in gas prices, and suddenly Amtrak won't look quite so expensive! This idea that we need to go the opposite way and create a CHEAP train system that the government would basically just run as a free entitlement is beyond dumb, and exactly why nobody in Washington can balance the budget for more than about 5 seconds anymore! Give me give me give me, but waaaaaaaah, don't raise my taxes!!! GROW UP!

  • Posted By: chrisusmc81 @ 07/15/2008 11:50:34 AM

    Comment: 3 times in the last year my wife and i had priced trips on amtrak, from northern va to Ill, Pa, and Conn, and all three times we discovered that not only was driving our own vehicle 40% cheaper, (even with rediculous gas prices) but it was about twice as fast as well. Amtrak is a broken and inefficient system, and throwing more money at it wont solve our transportation problem. The people running amtrak are deluded. We priced plane tickets that were almost the same price as a plane ticket. Not only that but there aren't near enough stops. I cant plan trips to destinations i want for this reason.

  • Posted By: JBer @ 07/15/2008 11:49:13 AM

    Comment: Back in the days before Amtrak, the private rail companies couldn't unload passenger service fast enough. Why would anyone think that private companies would want to take it over now?

  • Posted By: chrisusmc81 @ 07/15/2008 11:42:29 AM

    Comment: Three times in the last year my wife and I had planned trips from virginia to other locations including illinois, connecticut and pa, and all three times we realized that not only travel by personal verhicle was about 40 % faster, but even with rediculous gas prices this summer, it was still half the cost. The train system is broken and inefficient. Throwing more money at it wont fix it.

  • Posted By: bsciambi @ 07/15/2008 10:38:53 AM

    Comment: The article cites critics who say the government should not be funding Amtrack and that the rails should be entrusted to private companies. The article also implies that Amtrack has never made a profit because it is a government run monopoly. Nowhere does the article mention that the federal interstate hiway system is also a federally funded government monopoly which has never made a profit. Why do taxpayers not complain about that? Why doesn't anyone suggest that our hiways should be handed over to private enterprise to build and maintain at a profit? The answer is that it cannot be done. Hiways and airports are publicly owned, that's how and why airlines and bus companies can operate privately at a profit. Without the subsidy of public roads and airports, United Airlines and Greyhound could not exist. That's why every other civilized nation in the world has a clean, efficient, fast rail system subsidized with tax dollars. If privately funded rail service were even remotely feasible, why hasn't a single entrepeneir or corporation tried it?

  • Posted By: clambe @ 07/15/2008 10:37:18 AM

    Comment: We use Amtrak - the New Orleans line from Atlanta to MS and it can be hell! Delays, often over crowded, drunk passengers, screaming children, etc. It's the poor man's air travel - major upgrades need to be made for this to be viable including the introduction of high speed trains as this 6 hour drive is often 10-12 hours by train. If time is money - it's still cheaper to drive.

  • Posted By: Nybor @ 07/15/2008 10:07:01 AM

    Comment: Even though we probably will never get the type of train system as people enjoy in other countries, it's obvious that even minor improvements would make taking the train more appealing to travelers. Recently, my daughter and I took a 17-hour train ride, and we were excited by the adventure of it. However, it quickly turned out to be one of the most disgusting and exhausting experiences in my life. The toilets were filthy. My seat was broken. The staff were unhelpful and wouldn't help me find two seats together on a crowded train. After my grueling weekend, I promised myself never again; either I walk, fly, or don't go at all.

  • Posted By: McNumbNut @ 07/15/2008 10:03:22 AM

    Comment: The private sector screwing up the rail system so bad, is the whole reason we have Amtrak. Google "Rail Passenger Service Act" ...(With 15 Billion dollar bailouts by our government to the airlines, might as well rename the airlines to AmAir...)

  • Posted By: golfing_fool @ 07/15/2008 9:59:23 AM

    Comment: Great article however, Amtrak and the US has a long way to go to make it a true alternative. I recently investigate using Amtrak for a family vacation to the Chicago area. From NYC to Chicago it is approximately a nineteen-hour train ride Vs. a twelve-hour ride by car or a three-hour flight. The system needs to be upgraded, more convenient, and better managed before it is a real solution to the current problem.

  • Posted By: Kitty7529 @ 07/15/2008 9:47:08 AM

    Comment: The commuter trains that Amtrak runs outside of Washington DC are appauling. They spill raw sewage onto the tracks and crosswalks, then all the passengers are forced to walk through it to get the parking lots. The stench of steaming urine and feces is overwhelming. The system and cars are so dirty and contaminated, it's a public health risk. It's won't shock me if there's an outbreak caused by it.

    • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 12:46:14 PM

      Comment: @Kitty7529,

      All Amtrak trains are required by law to have retention toilets. This has been the law now for well over 10 years, if not longer. Any flush of the toilet goes directly into the holding tank. There is simply no way that a toilet can dump on the tracks. If you're finding raw sewage on the tracks, then it must be from some local whose illegally dumping stuff there, but it certainly not from Amtrak.

  • Posted By: scoutie @ 07/15/2008 9:41:02 AM

    Comment: My mom and aunt are planning a trip to visit me in Florida from Mass. My aunt suggested looking into Amtrak as a less expensive alternative due to the high cost of fuel raising airline prices. HA! Fat chance of that! They wanted $700 EACH and it would take them 23 hours to get there, provided there were no delays and judging by Amtrak's reputation as pointed out by one of the other posters, 23 hours is a long shot. Meanwhile, I'm finding them tickets for a total cost with taxes and fees for both of them under $700.

    My grandmother and friends did use Amtrak recently but it was for a short 1-hour trip and given that they're all in their early 90s and didn't want to drive that far, it worked well for them and was inexpensive but Amtrak cannot compete with the airlines for longer trips.

  • Posted By: adastra42 @ 07/15/2008 9:23:33 AM

    Comment: First, improving the infrastructure would cost 10's of billions, NOT hundreds! This is real money, make no mistake, but the nay-sayers like to give 'sky-is-falling' estimates of how much things would cost to update Amtrak, conveniently ignoring reality. Instead of whole new lines, in most cases it would only be necessary to build several miles of pass-through track on existing railroad right-of-way.

    And I love the passive-aggressive commentary: 'a handful of commuter lines'; There are just under 30 transit systems in this country, including two new ones being built in Phoenix and Seattle. That's more than a handful, but there's still a mindset among some people that trains are 'inefficient' and only a 'novelty'. A novelty: that must be why LA is building a subway network to replace their streetcars.

    Couple of other points:
    --If rail transit is so inefficient, why are the automakers and the airlines doing so well? Can you imagine GM's profitability if they had to operate the roads as well as build cars?
    --Rail has a bad rap in part because they overbuilt in the late 1800's, and by the time they realized how bad it was the auto industry was in full form (1920's) and was lobbying congress heavily to shut them down.
    --Ask anyone who opposes rail if they have any investment in oil/cars/air travel. Their answers might surprise you.

    --A few weeks ago American Airlines cancelled 3,000+ flights for maintenance, while at the same time gas prices went up over 20 cents a gallon. Yet in that same week there was NO news from Amtrak; the trains ran, and yes there were some delays but everything operated as normal. Think about that.

    • Posted By: bill in tn @ 07/15/2008 4:32:11 PM

      Comment: Here's something else to tthink about: To the best of my knowledge (and I am a Railroad History bufff) the last time a passenger train was hijacked was in 1862. The incident was the Andrews Raid, aka the Great Locomotive Chase.

  • Posted By: Mike N @ 07/15/2008 8:40:39 AM

    Comment: I find it hilarious and also pathetic that he was threatened with arrest for filming a piece that would theoretically make riding the train look like a nice alternative to driving. Well at least we're fighting them over there instead of in the dining car of the Acela.

  • Posted By: L.A. @ 07/15/2008 8:07:04 AM

    Comment: As a frequent traveller, I have used all options available: Drive myself, fly, Amtrak, Megabus, carpool with others, etc. I *always* prefer any sort of mass transportation. Take into consideration more than just the money you are spending on gas, consider your personal health. I would much prefer to take a 5 hour train ride through the country with pleasant attendants (and darn good coffee!) and have the option of bathrooms when I choose, food when I choose, naps when I choose, card games when I choose, than spend 5 hour on the road, in possible traffic, through road construction, dealing with other individuals. Yes, for a cross country trip of several days, I would reinvestigate options of flying rather than be on a train for several days, unless the trip itself is your vacation. Have you ever gone to sleep in the plains and woken up in the Rockies? I highly suggest a trip out and back (or even out and fly back) on the California Zephyr.
    On a side note, when has a flight ever waited on you because your connection was late? This past holiday season my outbound train was delayed by 30 minutes (not much compared to air travel) to allow connecting passengers from other trains the chance to get there. I commend Amtrak for having the forethought to make sure these individuals got onto the train. All other modes of transportation were sold out (I nearly missed that same train due to traffic myself), and those individuals would have been stranded in Union Station for the holidays with no options.

  • Posted By: amtrakrider @ 07/15/2008 7:15:44 AM

    Comment: We have found Amtrak to be very reasonable in price and luxery. We live where we have very few options to mass transit, we are 250 miles from an airport and 30 miles from a train. Yes due to many factors out of Amtraks hands, they are not always on time, but then again when was the last time an airplane was on time. If Amtrak was available in my area for mass trainsit, I would use it. We travel amtrak for vacations and have found them to be way better and cheaper than driving. The employees are wonderful, the train is great and each trip is an adventure. We started riding two years ago and will continue for many years. Why? The price of gas and the new airline rules and airline hassles.

  • Posted By: NJulian @ 07/14/2008 12:46:26 PM

    Comment: If all the money wasted on the distruction of Iraq could have been allocated instead to the construction of a rail system, our country would not be in the economic turmoil we're in. We could have created thousands of jobs and saved thousands of lives.

    • Posted By: Jim1348 @ 07/15/2008 10:32:24 AM

      Comment: You are right, except that you didn't put a price tag on our foolishness in invading the wrong country. The latest estimates are $3 trillion (that is $3,000 billion for the numerically-challenged). W. argues that is greatly inflated, but they only account for the direct costs of the war, not including the higher oil prices due to destabilizing the Mideast and the resulting recession. Trains are a lot cheaper.

  • Posted By: Verifier @ 07/14/2008 9:29:19 AM

    Comment: My earlier message addressed factual errors included in this news story, and the inability for reporters to provide an accurate analysis of passenge